COMPARATIVE APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

PERSONALITYASSESSMENT ACROSSCULTURES

Imported and IndigenousInstruments

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

LECTURE OUTLINE

•Background

•Key Issues in Using Imported Tests

– Translation

– Psychometric properties

– Norms

– Ethical issues

– Gaps in culturally relevant assessments

•Widely used instruments

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

LECTURE OUTLINE (cont)

•Development of indigenous instruments:CPAI

–Test construction

–“Chinese” domains

–Personality and clinical scales

–Norms and standardization

–Higher Order Factors

•Cross-cultural extensions: Emics go Etic

•Conclusion

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

BACKGROUND

•Objectives of personality assessment

•Test availability

•Indigenous or imported instruments?

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

KEY ISSUES IN USINGIMPORTED TESTS

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

TRANSLATION

•Back translation

•Equivalence of meaning

•Field testing

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

PSYCHOMETRICPROPERTIES

•Reliability

–Internal consistency

–Temporal stability

•Validity

–Content

–Construct

convergent

discriminant

–Predictive

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

MEASUREMENTEQUIVALENCE

•Metric equivalence

– Same psychometric properties such asinternal consistency and factor structures

•Scalar equivalence

– Scales used the same way, addresses issuessuch as acquiescence or response sets acrosscultures

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

NORMS

•Local or imported norms?

•Research or assessment purposes?

•Relative or absolute judgments?

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

ETHICAL STANDARDS

•Translation versions

•Copyright

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

GAPS IN ASSESSMENT

•Are important dimensions missing?

•Interpersonal Relationship factor inCPAI

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

WIDELY USED TESTS

•Minnesota Multi-phasic PersonalityInventory (MMPI)

•Eysenck Personality Questionnaire(EPQ)

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

DEVELOPMENT OF THECPAI

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

FIRST STEPS: GENERATINGTRAITS

•Selection of contemporary novels

•Review of books on Chinese proverbs

•Collection of self-description statements

•Pilot survey of professionals

•Review of psychological literature

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

CHINESE DOMAINS

•Harmony

•Relationship Orientation (Ren Qin)

•Modernization

•Thrift

•Defensiveness (Ah Q mentality)

•Graciousness

•Veraciousness

•Face

•Family Orientation

•Somatization

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

ITEM GENERATION ANDSELECTION

•20-30 items generated for 38 domains

•900 items screened for difficulty and pre-tested

•Trial version administered to over 1100respondents

•Item selection on statistical and conceptualgrounds

•22 personality and 12 clinical scales

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

STANDARDIZATION

•Over 2300 18-65 year olds in HK and PRC

•Additional item and scale refinement

•24 personality scales and 12 clinical scales

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

STANDARDIZATION

•PRC Chinese scored higher on Face andDefensiveness

•HK Chinese scored higher on Practical- mindedness

•Men scored higher on self-orientation, leadership,optimism, logical mindedness, adventurousness,pathological dependence

•Women scored higher on emotionality,veraciousness, somatization, anxiety and inferiority

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

HIGHER ORDER FACTORSTRUCTURE: DEPENDABILITY

F I

Emotionality

-.74

Veraciousness

.60

Responsibility

.72

External LOC

-.60

Practical mind

.72

Face

-.56

Inferiority

-.69

Family Orient

.56

Graciousness

.67

Meticulousness

.55

Optimism

.62

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

HIGHER ORDER FACTORSTRUCTURE: CHINESE TRADITION

F II

Harmony

.72

Ren Qin

.71

Flexibility

-.66

Modernization

-.56

Thrift

.52

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

HIGHER ORDER FACTORSTRUCTURE: SOCIAL POTENCY

F III

Introversion

-.79

Leadership

.72

Adventurousness

.62

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

HIGHER ORDER FACTORSTRUCTURE: INDIVIDUALISM

F IV

Self Orientation

.81

Logical Orientation

.53

Defensiveness

.45

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

HIGHER ORDER FACTOR ANALYSISOF CLINICAL SCALES

F I

F II

Depression

.82

Hypomania

.79

Anxiety

.76

Antisocial behaviour

.73

Physical symptoms

.76

Need for attention

.62

Inferiority

.75

Pathological depend

.61

Somatization

.70

Paranoia

.59

Distortion of reality

.57

Sexual maladjustment

.42

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

•CPAI-2 with additional scales tomeasure openness

•Extension to English speakers(Singaporean Chinese, CaucasianAmericans)

•Translation to Japanese and Korean

•Cross-cultural Personality Inventory

$\\FILESERVER\TRANSFER\toJennifer\microsoft globes\wire01 copy.jpg$

QUESTIONS

•What are the critical issues in choice ofa personality assessment instrument forcross-cultural research?

•For diagnostic purposes in a “foreign”culture?

•How does the CPAI compare to theNEO-PI?